The Second Indochina War was a Cold War conflict that took place in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia from the late 1950's to 1975. The goal of the North Vietnamese was to unify Vietnam and finally achieve independence. The US, on the other hand, wanted to prevent all of Vietnam and neighboring countries from becoming Communist. The NVA used a network of roads and tunnels called the Ho Chi Minh Trail to infiltrate soldiers and material to practically any location in South Vietnam. To safeguard the Ho Chi Minh Trail, they worked closely with Pathet Lao and the Khmer Rouge, both Communist-backed. Due to political consideration of Laos and Cambodian neutrality, the US decided to bomb the Ho Chi Minh Trail from bases in Thailand and South Vietnam instead of using ground forces which would have been more effective. As a result, Laos has the distinction of being the most heavily bombed country per capita, having in excess of 270 million submunitions from cluster bombs dropped between 1964-73.

Yeah, this is pretty neat. The bonus structure is way cool and the bombardments are shweet as well. There are some things that need explaining/improvement though:1. What does "Double Power" mean?2. The HCMT route info should probably go with the attack routes section. And the range of 2 from North to South seems a bit much. I say drop that altogether.3. The "zones" I think need to be a little more obvious.4. Does the US aircraft carrier get a bonus at all? It attacks a ton of things for it not to have at least an auto-deploy.5. The two different objectives are cool, but are they equally probable in obtaining?6. Troop numbers are gonna be a major problem, it seems.7. Is the "back path" necessary? Why can't you just use a two-way attack route?8. I don't think all the starting positions are equal, because dropping Saigon means you already have an objective point that applies to both objectives, while dropping Bangkok gives you nothing.9. The Ta Veng to China route needs to be way more obvious than some text shoved off to the side. Why does Ta Veng attack China anyway?

Victor Sullivan wrote:Yeah, this is pretty neat. The bonus structure is way cool and the bombardments are shweet as well. There are some things that need explaining/improvement though:1. What does "Double Power" mean?It means you hold 2 powers? double power? yea...

2. The HCMT route info should probably go with the attack routes section. And the range of 2 from North to South seems a bit much. I say drop that altogether.This can change later, it should be fine where it is now for explaining the map and getting thru the map idea.

3. The "zones" I think need to be a little more obvious.I have the visibility turned down to like 50% i can up that later if this becomes a problem, it looks clear enough to me, maybe i could change the patterns to make it more clear, i was planning on changing this later as well in the graphics thread.

4. Does the US aircraft carrier get a bonus at all? It attacks a ton of things for it not to have at least an auto-deploy.Have to wait for Farang to comment on this one, gameplay, but it hits a lot of things like you said, if it had auto deploy it might become too powerful and throw the map off balance?

5. The two different objectives are cool, but are they equally probable in obtaining?FD will answer this, i am sure they are pretty equal tho, but might need some changes... see what others say and FD

6. Troop numbers are gonna be a major problem, it seems.why?

7. Is the "back path" necessary? Why can't you just use a two-way attack route?We did not want to create a 4 way with the connections so i used a simple illustration to get around that, its called a back path, same 2 way attack, just easier to see. This can also change, i just don't like the 4 way

8. I don't think all the starting positions are equal, because dropping Saigon means you already have an objective point that applies to both objectives, while dropping Bangkok gives you nothing.BKK gives you nothing? it puts you in place to get a nice bonus, this map is pretty equaled out as FD had worked on it a while before even showing it to me, for the most part it is pretty fair on drops. Its OK if you drop on an objective point because you still don't have that objective until you get all the other terts which wont be easy... read the first post too sully, we have 11 territs starting as neutral.

9. The Ta Veng to China route needs to be way more obvious than some text shoved off to the side. Why does Ta Veng attack China anyway?This was our last edit before putting this into the foundry, we had concerns with putting arrows that crossed over everything to get to China from Ta Veng, so we just put some text above China to show that it was a 1 way attack... we can try to make it more clear if someone has an idea of how to make it more clear... this is a quote from FD why it is a 1 way attack "One additional one way attack. I was thinking let Ta Veng one way attack to China. This signifies the influence that Khmer Rouge has to get Norodom Sihanouk on their side."

It means the territory counts toward two different bonuses at the same time. If this is clear from the map (rectangle enveloping both bonus symbols) we can drop it from the legend.

grifftron wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:2. HCMT - the range of 2 from North to South seems a bit much. I say drop that altogether.This can change later, it should be fine where it is now for explaining the map and getting thru the map idea.

This shows the porousness of the Ho Chi Minh Trial and should result in a predominantly North to South flow of troops, which would be true to history. So you can kind of hopscotch down the HCMT from Vinh on southward, skipping every other territory. I don't see any problem with that, it makes it harder to hold HCMT bonuses (which would be too powerful otherwise - because every 3 in a row is +2) and entices people to attack N->S.

grifftron wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:4. Does the US aircraft carrier get a bonus at all? It attacks a ton of things for it not to have at least an auto-deploy.Have to wait for Farang to comment on this one, gameplay, but it hits a lot of things like you said, if it had auto deploy it might become too powerful and throw the map off balance?

The reason why I added that territ was to give the US player easy connectivity to US Army bases and Thailand, and to give Phnom Penh player some access to China (to acquire the Cambodian symbol representing Norodom Sihanouk in exile). I don't want to make any autodeploys because it might make balancing the map tricky. And I think we have enough complication in the map already and don't want to risk adding more.

grifftron wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:5. The two different objectives are cool, but are they equally probable in obtaining?FD will answer this, i am sure they are pretty equal tho, but might need some changes... see what others say and FD

It is hard to say exactly because the HCMT makes it easy to attack into South Vietnam, which is necessary to hold for both victory conditions.

While the ARVN-US victory condition is difficult to achieve because of the need to defend both Pattaya and Lima Site 85, PAVN victory is difficult because to ensure a hold on Kratie, it may be necessary to secure all US Airbases which could bombard it - unless the player can put a big enough stack on it.

Overall, I think the PAVN victory is somewhat easier to achieve, but I think this is how it should be anyway.

grifftron wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:7. Is the "back path" necessary? Why can't you just use a two-way attack route?We did not want to create a 4 way with the connections so i used a simple illustration to get around that, its called a back path, same 2 way attack, just easier to see. This can also change, i just don't like the 4 way

Whatever works visually, I just want the connectivity to remain the same.

grifftron wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:8. I don't think all the starting positions are equal, because dropping Saigon means you already have an objective point that applies to both objectives, while dropping Bangkok gives you nothing.BKK gives you nothing? it puts you in place to get a nice bonus, this map is pretty equaled out as FD had worked on it a while before even showing it to me, for the most part it is pretty fair on drops. Its OK if you drop on an objective point because you still don't have that objective until you get all the other terts which wont be easy... read the first post too sully, we have 11 territs starting as neutral.

To make things fair, I made sure that each starting position had at least 1 symbol type within easy reach. The other concern I had was manipulating connectivity such that each starting position closely neighbored roughly the same number of rival starting positions.

Bangkok borders 5 different bonus symbols, so it is pretty good. The starting positions that border less bonus symbols are near the HCMT which provides a chance at a similarly easy-to-obtain 3-territory bonus of +2.

Again, the remaining territories will be distributed randomly, so it is not necessary to have the same level of starting position equality of say, a feudal or age of merchants. The model we are using here is similar to that used in 3rd Crusades - starting position just means you start with 6 there instead of 3. We can change this value if necessary but so far I don't see a compelling reason to do so.

grifftron wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:9. The Ta Veng to China route needs to be way more obvious than some text shoved off to the side. Why does Ta Veng attack China anyway?This was our last edit before putting this into the foundry, we had concerns with putting arrows that crossed over everything to get to China from Ta Veng, so we just put some text above China to show that it was a 1 way attack... we can try to make it more clear if someone has an idea of how to make it more clear... this is a quote from FD why it is a 1 way attack "One additional one way attack. I was thinking let Ta Veng one way attack to China. This signifies the influence that Khmer Rouge has to get Norodom Sihanouk on their side."

After Lon Nol overthrew Cambodia in 1970, King Norodom Sihanouk went into exile in China. We chose Hainan Island for convenience to represent him, as it fits nicely on the map - he most likely went to Beijing, though. We gave the label "China" to simplify things. I'm planning on adding in the xml something like "China - King Norodom Sihanouk (exile)".

The Phnom Penh player can get to China via Sihanoukville -> Aircraft Carrier. But without the direct one-way attack, Ta Veng (the Khmer Rouge HQ) would have a very difficult time getting to him. And we really need to make Khmer Rouge be able to get him easier than Phnom Penh because in reality they persuaded him to join their side (well he didn't have too many options remaining after he was overthrown by the rightist generals).

The reason why we chose to put a Cambodian symbol on the exiled King is because many of the Cambodians who were fighting for the Khmer Rouge did so because they believed they were fighting for the restoration of their monarch.

Victor Sullivan wrote:That's all for now! Looks promising, though!

-Sully

I appreciate your feedback! Very good questions.

army of nobunaga wrote:this reminds me of Austerlitzwhich is like one of the unofficial favorites of players.. rather ppl over 3000 games and play a lot of maps.

has more promise than thailand in my opinion man.

Thanks very much! We certainly have a lot more freedom to correlate history with interesting gameplay in this map, as Thailand was meant to be a more-or-less standard map. Let's see how it goes!

Click image to enlarge.

"He came dancin across the water.... FarangDemon, FarangDemon.... mmmhh....what a killer..."

This map looks complicated as hell. When going for a more involved map a mapmaker has to be careful to make it clear what the instructions are and that the map can be easily read. You can still have a 'complicated' map and still be clear. This balancing act is what ties up most mapmakers when pursing something like this.

That said... I see all these symbols and the extensive legend and am put off. When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect. I think this map has a level of murkiness that needs some work.

Victor Sullivan wrote:6. Troop numbers are gonna be a major problem, it seems.why?

Where are they gonna go? There's no spot for them and you can't put them on top of the symbols.

Industrial Helix wrote:This map looks complicated as hell. When going for a more involved map a mapmaker has to be careful to make it clear what the instructions are and that the map can be easily read. You can still have a 'complicated' map and still be clear. This balancing act is what ties up most mapmakers when pursing something like this.

That said... I see all these symbols and the extensive legend and am put off. When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect. I think this map has a level of murkiness that needs some work.

Love the graphics though.

I agree with this on many accounts, which is why I suggested ditching the HCMT North-to-South attacking and the "back path". It also sounds like the "Double Power" section can just be completely deleted. Now, despite the complicatedness of this map, I think if you organize the legend and work the graphics right, you could make it work. The legend seems a tad unorganized right now, and I think the bombardment zones could stand to be a little more obvious.

Victor Sullivan wrote:6. Troop numbers are gonna be a major problem, it seems.why?

Where are they gonna go? There's no spot for them and you can't put them on top of the symbols.

Industrial Helix wrote:This map looks complicated as hell. When going for a more involved map a mapmaker has to be careful to make it clear what the instructions are and that the map can be easily read. You can still have a 'complicated' map and still be clear. This balancing act is what ties up most mapmakers when pursing something like this.

That said... I see all these symbols and the extensive legend and am put off. When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect. I think this map has a level of murkiness that needs some work.

Love the graphics though.

I agree with this on many accounts, which is why I suggested ditching the HCMT North-to-South attacking and the "back path". It also sounds like the "Double Power" section can just be completely deleted. Now, despite the complicatedness of this map, I think if you organize the legend and work the graphics right, you could make it work. The legend seems a tad unorganized right now, and I think the bombardment zones could stand to be a little more obvious.

Did you guys even read the legend? its not as complicated as it looks...

I understand your gripes IH and Victor. But it is already to me mas readable than a few maps that are out that people just rave about. One of which is new And I STILL cannot understand its heirogliphics ... I know that maps out have nothing to do with future maps. I just think with time and the symbols quirked a little this one will be more than understandable. This is only MElting pot and it isnt too bad imo.

I HATE complicated maps, but I got this one pretty much right off the bat.

Ill try to study it harder when I get back to reynosa, Im a little out of pocket atm.

Industrial Helix wrote:This map looks complicated as hell. When going for a more involved map a mapmaker has to be careful to make it clear what the instructions are and that the map can be easily read. You can still have a 'complicated' map and still be clear. This balancing act is what ties up most mapmakers when pursing something like this.

That said... I see all these symbols and the extensive legend and am put off. When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect. I think this map has a level of murkiness that needs some work.

Love the graphics though.

I understand all the things in the legend, too, but like Helix said, you're still gonna have to keep referencing the legend to see what attacks what, what this route does/means, what symbols you need for the objective, etc. And I realize some of this can't be avoided, but I think you should take steps to make things easier on the players.

Industrial Helix wrote:This map looks complicated as hell. When going for a more involved map a mapmaker has to be careful to make it clear what the instructions are and that the map can be easily read. You can still have a 'complicated' map and still be clear. This balancing act is what ties up most mapmakers when pursing something like this.

That said... I see all these symbols and the extensive legend and am put off. When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect. I think this map has a level of murkiness that needs some work.

Love the graphics though.

I understand all the things in the legend, too, but like Helix said, you're still gonna have to keep referencing the legend to see what attacks what, what this route does/means, what symbols you need for the objective, etc. And I realize some of this can't be avoided, but I think you should take steps to make things easier on the players.

-Sully

No. Some people like myself enjoy maps that are a little more complicated then doodle earth. And if you play them a few times you get the hang of them and wouldn't have to look at the key so much. There are maps that are already out that are WAY more confusing then this map. And what is so bad at having to look at the key every once in a while anyways? that is what it is there for...

oh, and i might get yelled at for saying this but for those that really suck at looking at the key they have add ons for that you know... also what they are there for...

Industrial Helix wrote:This map looks complicated as hell. When going for a more involved map a mapmaker has to be careful to make it clear what the instructions are and that the map can be easily read. You can still have a 'complicated' map and still be clear. This balancing act is what ties up most mapmakers when pursing something like this.

That said... I see all these symbols and the extensive legend and am put off. When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect. I think this map has a level of murkiness that needs some work.

Love the graphics though.

I understand all the things in the legend, too, but like Helix said, you're still gonna have to keep referencing the legend to see what attacks what, what this route does/means, what symbols you need for the objective, etc. And I realize some of this can't be avoided, but I think you should take steps to make things easier on the players.

-Sully

No. Some people like myself enjoy maps that are a little more complicated then doodle earth. And if you play them a few times you get the hang of them and wouldn't have to look at the key so much. There are maps that are already out that are WAY more confusing then this map. And what is so bad at having to look at the key every once in a while anyways? that is what it is there for...

oh, and i might get yelled at for saying this but for those that really suck at looking at the key they have add ons for that you know... also what they are there for...

I'm not bashing your map at all, I actually think this would be a great map to play because of it's complexity. I just think there are some things that make it unnecessarily more complicated.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Sigh... Do I have to say it again? The back path, the North-to-South attack along the HCMT route, things I've already mentioned...

sully.. we told you those WERE needed unless you had a different way around the back bath.

But i will also say it again...

the back path was needed instead of a normal 2 way attack route because it would create a 4 way crossing which would be confusing. And i know Farang just answered your question on his last post on the HCMT...

now if you have suggestions that would help it become easier to understand visually please let us know.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Sigh... Do I have to say it again? The back path, the North-to-South attack along the HCMT route, things I've already mentioned...

sully.. we told you those WERE needed unless you had a different way around the back bath.

But i will also say it again...

the back path was needed instead of a normal 2 way attack route because it would create a 4 way crossing which would be confusing. And i know Farang just answered your question on his last post on the HCMT...

now if you have suggestions that would help it become easier to understand visually please let us know.

-griff

I'm just saying, sacrifices must me made for solid gameplay or to get things to work. I say ditch the back path, the HCMT N>S assaults, and the Ta Veng>China bombardment.

grifftron wrote:No. All of those help even out the map, without those you have an easy played map of no balance.

What exactly would be off-balance? Would one objective then be much easier to get over the other? Would one particular bonus be easier to obtain? I'm having trouble seeing the negative repercussions of ditching those aspects.

On a similar note, I'd like to say I don't mean to hate on your map (I may have said this already, but it's good to reiterate). Remember, I like this concept, if I didn't or had nothing to contribute, then I wouldn't

Industrial Helix wrote:When I take my turn I know that I'm going to have to constantly be referencing the symbols with the legend, ect.

Actually I think it would require less time spent looking at the legend than when playing 3rd Crusade and many other maps. Usually, time spent looking at legend is to determine the value of bonuses - this is completely eliminated once one understands the simple rules used for obtaining bonuses (which is kind of similar to Holy Roman Empire except there are 4 instances of each symbol type instead of just 3):

3 of same symbol = +24 of same symbol = +4

(perhaps it would be easier to readily understand if the words in the legend that explain this were reduced to this more concise version?)

There is no need for further study of symbols to determine bonuses, only bombarding and the victory conditions (which I believe are intuitive).

The HCMT bonus rule is also very straightforward:any 3 in a row along HCMT main artery = +2 (cumulative)

It is necessary to look at legend to determine bombardments, but we've tried to make it as clear as possible by using coloring and patterns in the bombardment zones. And there are only two different bombarding "behaviors", those of the RTAFB and US Airbases.

I share your opinion that the complexity of the map should be workable and that the legend is key. I appreciate your input and please advise on any particular suggestions for clearing anything up.

Victor Sullivan wrote:I'm just saying, sacrifices must me made for solid gameplay or to get things to work. I say ditch the back path, the HCMT N>S assaults, and the Ta Veng>China bombardment.

Would it be acceptable to keep the backpath looking how it is (dashed path) and just put a dashed path in the legend under "Two way attacks"? Or was the concensus to get rid of the mentioning of two way attacks altogether? I think it would ok to not mention the backpath and not mention two way attacks and just keep the dashed line how it is. Any words we can shave from the legend will have a great impact on legend readability.

I appreciate your concern regarding complexity of giving N->S HCMT assaults range 2. It may be the trickiest feature on the map (after bombardments which are not too tricky). However range 2 attacks are an established staple in the CC map collection and I believe that it will be easier to visualize where our range 2 attacks can go on our map than on others containing range 2 attacks because you have a clearly marked path to follow that is colored differently - the HCMT. In Austerlitz or Waterloo it can be a bit confusing or time consuming to try to go two spaces in every direction from every horse in your head. In our map, you only have to follow the HCMT north to south to see your options to attack with range 2. If the place you are thinking about attacking is not 2 away along the HCMT from N-S, you cannot hit it.

Re: Ta Veng -> China one way assault. To put it into perspective, our legend contains a single one-way attack - 3rd Crusade contains 5. And you can see that there is a Cambodian flag symbol on the territory being attacked so it is not totally surprising to see that a Cambodian starting position can one way attack it (again just like in 3rd Crusade one way attacks from starting positions).

I appreciate your support and concerns. They are all valid concerns regarding complexity. I hope you feel like we've addressed them and please contribute further to help us make a solid map.

Click image to enlarge.

"He came dancin across the water.... FarangDemon, FarangDemon.... mmmhh....what a killer..."